US District Judge Lucy Koh, who oversaw the blockbuster Apple v. Samsung trial in San Jose last summer, published three orders late yesterday that cover all but one of the post-trial issues in that litigation. The orders cover a wide range of issues, but there are two clear takeaways. First, Apple isn't getting anything more than the $1.05 billion it won at trial. And for Samsung, there's no big escape hatch from the poor results of this trial.

It's almost all ready for appeal now, where both sides will, again, try to seek an advantage. Apple has already appealed its failure to win an injunction.

At a December hearing, Apple's lawyers made clear that if it didn't get some of what it wanted—injunctions and bigger damages—the patent war between the two leading smartphone companies had no end in sight. While Apple had a big win at trial, this series of post-trial orders shows what Koh is willing to give Apple to sweeten the pot: which is to say, absolutely nothing, regardless of how loudly it asks.

So Apple's damages aren't going up, but will they go down? It's a distinct possibility. In a footnote to the order denying Samsung's motion for a new trial, Koh notes that there will be at least one more order, on Samsung's request to lower damages or to get a new trial on damages.

The key findings of the four orders follow.

Samsung's infringement not “willful”

When a patent infringer is found guilty of "willful" infringement, damage awards can be increased up to three times. The jury found Samsung's infringement was willful in five of the seven patents that Apple won on, but that isn't enough to automatically increase damages. For each of those five patents, Koh ruled, Samsung had good reasons to believe it didn't infringe, so the infringement isn't willful.

On the '381 patent and the '915 patent, for instance, Samsung had good reason to believe the key claims were invalid; on the '163 patent, Samsung had a reasonable defense that it was "indefinite," or too vague. Even though those defenses didn't ultimately carry the day for Samsung, the Korean electronics company wasn't being unreasonable in believing those defenses, Koh found.

In some cases the differences between Apple's patents and the prior art were tiny. In the '915 (multitouch) patent, Samsung argued that a Mitsubishi system called DiamondTouch should render it invalid. Koh explains:

The DiamondTouch, however, treats a two-finger touch as unique, and a single finger or a three-or-four-finger touch as the same. The ’915 Patent, in contrast, treats one-finger touches as unique, and two, three, or four-finger touches as the same. Though this jury did not, a jury could reasonably have found that the gap between DiamondTouch’s function and the ’915 Patent (i.e., whether the one-finger or the two-finger touch is unique) was not significant.

Koh ruled similarly on the two design patents, finding that Apple didn't even present much evidence of wilfulness for those two patents.

For Samsung: No escape from poor results, no new trial

Both sides tried to win in post-trial motions what they couldn't win at the jury trial. Samsung tried to argue that Apple's design patents were invalid and obvious. They argued, for instance, that the D'677 and D'087 patents were obvious because they were two similar to Japanese patents and a Korean patent that came before them. But Koh said those patents were different enough that the jury could have seen a "significant gap" between the prior art and Apple's patent. On Apple's design patent protecting its tablets, the D'889, Samsung again argued that the Fidler tablet and a tablet called the TC1000 rendered it obvious; Koh disagreed.

Koh shot down the rest of Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents should be nullified, as well. Samsung's post-trial attempt to argue that its patents really were infringed by Apple didn't get any traction with her.

Samsung also argued that the trial was "manifestly unfair," because of time limitations and evidentiary rulings by Koh. For example, Samsung was forbidden to play advertisements during trial while Apple was allowed to do so. "None of these arguments merits a new trial," wrote Koh. Both sides were treated similarly in terms of time limits and what arguments were allowed. In the case of the one significant difference, which was the use of advertisements, "Apple's advertisements were relevant evidence for secondary meaning and fame, elements of Apple's trade dress claims," wrote Koh. "Samsung has not established that its advertisements were similarly relevant."

In a separate order, Koh found that none of Apple's patents are invalid because of indefiniteness. That was one issue where, during a key December hearing, she seemed to be leaning Samsung's way in at least one case. Koh asked a variety of questions as to why she shouldn't find the '163 patent (Apple's "tap to zoom" patent) too ambiguous. While it may have been a close call, Koh let this patent stand, along with the others.

For Apple: No more damages, for patents or trademarks

Apple tried to win a variety of results post-trial that it couldn't wrest from the jury. With a small exception, none of those attempts succeeded.

The company tried to convince Koh that "trade dress" not found protectable by the jury should be found so. It tried to argue that patents it failed to invalidate should still be held invalid, and that Samsung should be liable on the breach of contract and antitrust grounds that Apple failed to win on at trial. Those all lost, with one small exception: Apple was able to invalidate two claims of Samsung's patent no. 7,675,941, claims 10 and 15. That patent claims a system for transmitting data over a wireless network, by chopping up data with certain types of headers. Koh found those claims were invalidated by prior art. That small victory won't matter too much in this case, since Apple wasn't found to infringe those Samsung patents.

Finally, Apple also asked for a $400 million bonus on its verdict for the trademark part of its case. Koh made clear that legal precedent gives her authority over whether to award any enhancement here, and she decided to give Apple nothing. The "trade dilution" theory that Apple won on is "a doctrine at the outer reaches of trademark and trade dress law," notes Koh, and Apple already received a massive award of $382 million for the trademark part of its case. "Further, Apple is making two inconsistent arguments: first, that money cannot compensate Apple for the harm its lost market share may cause going forward, and second, that the Court should award $400 million to compensate Apple for lost market share," notes Koh in her final order of the day [PDF]. "If an amount cannot be calculated to compensate for this loss, then it is unclear why $400 million would be an appropriate award."

Onward to appeal

Overall, Koh predictably defended the results of the four-week trial that took place in her courtroom. Apple's courtroom win is still likely to stand as a testament to how much damage a corporation can do to a competitor by wielding US intellectual property laws; if upheld on appeal, it will be the largest patent verdict ever. But today's orders show that Koh is clearly determined to set some limits on Apple's victory, and not let it become one more crushing than it already is.

I think Koh is really just sick of this case, and the scrutiny in her it's generated.

I can imagine it is one she wants to get off her docket and on to the appeals court docket ASAP and hope they don't bounce it back before she's gone.

It's what I'd want if I were her.

No kidding. Koh gets a lot of flak for supposedly being biased in favor of Apple, but I think what she really wants is for this nightmare of a case to go away and leave her alone. Her many futile attempts to get Apple and Samsung to work things out between each other seem to point in that direction.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

In this case, I suppose it's all good since software shouldn't be patentable in the first place, but it seems like an odd legal precedent to set for patent cases in general.

Reminds me of my kid growing up till I sat her down and explained what it is to be a spoiled kid and gave her some time out to let the words sink in.

Now how to apply the same to Apple when they act so douchy?

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPLIt you look at the 30 day roll the stock has dropped over $90. While I will not say it is only antics like this that has turned people away from Apple, it has played a part.

No kidding. Koh gets a lot of flak for supposedly being biased in favor of Apple, but I think what she really wants is for this nightmare of a case to go away and leave her alone. Her many futile attempts to get Apple and Samsung to work things out between each other seem to point in that direction.

Then she should have done what Posner did in the Apple/Motorola case and just dismissed it with prejudice right off the bat.

The entirety of Apple's claims were without merit from the start, and Samsung has only been using its patents defensively.

If Koh had just tossed the case everyone could have already happily moved on and Apple would have had to grit its teeth and competed on the merits of products rather than trying to leverage their political clout into removing more agile competitors from the market.

Judge Koh is behaving like almost every other jurist handling very high publicity cases in the past five years. Her opinions are clear, detailed, limited to narrow situations, and tend toward inaction. This limits the opportunity for her decisions to be overruled on appeal and in the event a decision is overruled she is able to say that the Appeals Court did its job and ruled on a unique situation.Personally I wish that Congress would pass comprehensive reform so that judges at all levels are not the arbiters of how the round peg of 21st century technology fits into the square hole of 19th and 20th century law.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

Yeah, I cant imagine this standing up on appeal.

Also, whats with the downvote brigade? Every post in this thread is downvoted to oblivion.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

Yeah, I cant imagine this standing up on appeal.

Also, whats with the downvote brigade? Every post in this thread is downvoted to oblivion.

The argument is over willful infringement and knowingly implementing a protected feature. Evidence that you didn't believe the patents were valid are the examples of prior art that you present in the trial in order to invalidate patents. The judge agreed that Samsung could have believed the patents were invalid based on the prior art presented at trial, but let stand the jury's finding that the patents were valid and Samsung infringed. This strictly applies to treble damages and I think Judge Koh doesn't want those on her hands so she's passing that on to appeals, if not lowering them in a later order. For her, having the damages raised on appeal is better then having them lowered on appeal. As it is now, the damages are only those awarded by the jury and it wouldn't be her award judgment affected on appeal.

Apple's lawyers made clear that if it didn't get some of what it wanted—injunctions and bigger damages—the patent war between the two leading smartphone companies had no end in sight

Reminds me of my kid growing up till I sat her down and explained what it is to be a spoiled kid and gave her some time out to let the words sink in.

Now how to apply the same to Apple when they act so douchy?

And is supported by their fanbase. Don't forget that. When their fanbase praises them for douchebag behavior nothing will ever change. Apple is worse then Microsoft ever was in its history of douchy behavior and yet its usebase still acts as if its this underdog who is about to go out of business. Clue to its fanbois: That stopped being the case in the early 2K's. Now they are just the anti-innovators who will sue anyone that might compete against them. Going back to the tired analogy: I wonder what we would have for cars if ford sued Chevy, Toyota, etc for having a steering wheel, a single block powerplant, 4 tires, a front and a back seat, a covering that opens and then closes to seal the passenger inside the vehicle, a trunk, and headlights. Oh right we'd have just Fords on the road.

For those wondering why this is taking a while, there are several facts to consider. 1) Courts are swamped with work and for the most part underfunded and understaffed. 2) Judges do not like to get overturned, so doing a quickie order in a complex case like this is just asking for an appeals court to smack the judge around. Writing these decisions by and large is not a simple task. 3) Per the US Constitution criminal cases take precedence, so civil matters like this will take a backseat.

Samsung skirted awful close and likely infringed on some of the patents. Was it significant enough to warrant this trial and the damages awarded, I think not. Much of this stems from the planet sized ego of Jobs and his desire to litigate competitors into submission. I can only hope that the new management at Apple realizes this is just a waste of time and resources. Really the only ones that benefit here are the attorneys.I would much rather have these companies put their resources on truly innovating instead of arguing over the minutae of rounded corners and other largely insignificant aspects of the design.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

Yeah, I cant imagine this standing up on appeal.

Also, whats with the downvote brigade? Every post in this thread is downvoted to oblivion.

Definitely looks like any intelligent discussion on the matter is getting insta-downvoted. Maybe the Fanbois would rather not see any discussion than actually participate in it...

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

Yeah, I cant imagine this standing up on appeal.

Also, whats with the downvote brigade? Every post in this thread is downvoted to oblivion.

Definitely looks like any intelligent discussion on the matter is getting insta-downvoted. Maybe the Fanbois would rather not see any discussion than actually participate in it...

This will be interesting. A lot of good points have been brought up. I don't think Judge Koh has any real biased other than she probably thinks this shouldn't have even gotten to court. It is pretty clear the injunctions aren't going to happen and the fine isn't going to be raised. I am not so sure the appeals court will hear this case out again I don't see anything that really questions the validity of the case itself except perhaps the damages involved but most time those cases don't turn out all that much better or different. It will be interesting.

I have noticed that with any thread involving Apple even on the iOS7 ideas thread where people were just suggesting things that made sense got down voted.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

Yeah, I cant imagine this standing up on appeal.

From other forum

Quote:

Jurisprudence has developed that to mean in "willful" situations. For willful infringement, Apple must show that Samsung “(1) [were] aware of the . . . patent; (2) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that [their] actions infringed a valid patent; where (3) this objectively high risk was either known or so obvious it should have been known to [the defendants].” i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 858 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, even if Apple does show all that, the judge still has discretion to not give enhanced damages, and doing so would 99% of the time not be an abuse of such discretion. Here, Samsung was no unreasonable in questioning the validity of the patents back then, and therefore their infringement was not willful.

Reminds me of my kid growing up till I sat her down and explained what it is to be a spoiled kid and gave her some time out to let the words sink in.

Now how to apply the same to Apple when they act so douchy?

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPLIt you look at the 30 day roll the stock has dropped over $90. While I will not say it is only antics like this that has turned people away from Apple, it has played a part.

Yup, because enough people invest in stocks with how a company preforms ethically to actually drop the price by a lot. The drop probably has nothing to do with Apple coming under expectations last quarter...

Reminds me of my kid growing up till I sat her down and explained what it is to be a spoiled kid and gave her some time out to let the words sink in.

Now how to apply the same to Apple when they act so douchy?

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPLIt you look at the 30 day roll the stock has dropped over $90. While I will not say it is only antics like this that has turned people away from Apple, it has played a part.

Yup, because enough people invest in stocks with how a company preforms ethically to actually drop the price by a lot. The drop probably has nothing to do with Apple coming under expectations last quarter...

Still has an inexplicably good P/E ratio even with the stock drop. It's like the market thinks the other shoe is going to drop soon or something.

I wonder how much the trial affected sales of Apple products. I know of a few sales it cost them. AZ few sales mutiplied by a few millions could cause a stock price drop due to coming in under expectations. yes the trial "may" have had an adverse effect. Those that are Apple fans will be un affected but those of us on the fence can be swayed by what we consider bad behavior. I willhave to check out RIM and Win8 phones.

The bottom line for me seems to be... If I know that I'm infringing a specific patent, but I think the patent *might* not be valid, then I'm not "willfully infringing"?

I have a few patents that have been issued. I know, and have worked with, several patent lawyers over the years. Universally, every single one of them, they have advised me that it is foolish to try to file the "perfect patent" as with enough time, money and effort literally *any* patent can be broken (declared invalid).

If this is true (and I don't doubt it) then anyone can legitimately claim that they believe they are infringing on a patent that might not be valid in the first place. Carrying this line of reasoning forward, then no one can every be convicted of "willful infringement" as they can claim it was their belief that there was ambiguity in the validity of the patent --- unless --- the patent holder finds the smoking gun where the infringing person/company publicly states: "I don't care if the patent is valid or not. I'm going to copy it and refuse to deal with the patent holder."

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

In this case, I suppose it's all good since software shouldn't be patentable in the first place, but it seems like an odd legal precedent to set for patent cases in general.

It might seem odd, but Samsung knows that the patent system is broken. And by broken I mean, patents are issued willy-nilly and it's up to the courts to decide. And really, Samsung should have won this case, but lost due to a rogue jury that didn't care to understand what prior art even means.

Another way to see this is a Billion dollars for infringement that has now been found to not be willful. We'll see if the appeals court views that as excessive.

I would also point out that this Billion dollar award is for patents, some of which have since been found to be invalid.

In the end, at worst, Samsung may have to pay up to a Billiion (but I doubt it) and life will go on.

I agree that Apple did something innovative that changed the entire mobile landscape. But what they did mostly was build new software for off the shelf technology made by others. Apple also took things to the next logical step that was fairly obvious to anyone who build J2ME apps in the first half of the 2000's. It was obvious that a universal app store was needed instead of separate stores from each mobile network operator. It was obvious that the nearly compatible J2ME phones all needed universal compatibility so all apps worked on all phones. It was obvious that the 10-key+menus and arrows keypads of J2ME phones were insufficient input devices for interacting with the many obvious ideas for applications and games.

The competitors did not use any of Apple's code, and don't want it. No competitors were trying to cause consumer confusion, they are clearly trying to promote their own brands and products. Apple claims of similarity, IMO, are like Ford claiming that any car with a steering wheel, four wheels, a hood and a trunk are "too similar". Heck, in one court (forgot which one) Apple claimed with a straight face that Samsung should not have made it's tablets so thin, and should have made their interface more cluttered. Really? That's like saying that a competing sports car maker should not make their car "go fast". Tables and phones have an obvious shape and form factor. Apple cannot own the very idea touch screens, basic rectangular shapes, placement of microphones, speakers, buttons, etc. But that seems to be what they want.

Apple's devices are hardware made by others. At least cpu's, flash and screens come from Samsung. Apple touts the "retina" display, but all they really did is take a display made by Samsung and slap a brand name on it. That's supposed to be innovation. Who owns the patents on the manufacturing process technology to build that display? Who did the R&D to develop a way of fabricating that? Samsung. Nobody else on the planet can supply the quality and quantity of Flash that Apple needs except Samsung. So I find it interesting that Apple is so upset about nothing more than mere competition of a differently branded but superior product. (And disagree if you want, but if it weren't superior, it wouldn't be outselling its competitor.)

Then there are the FRAND patents against Apple. Why is it that Apple seems to think it should not have to pay for patented FRAND technology when everyone else does? Why does Apple and Microsoft think that FRAND patents should not be able to get injunctions, but worthless patents like rounded corner rectangles and bouncy scrolling should be able to get exorbitant royalties or even permanent injunctions? If FRAND patents can't get injunctions, then there really is no mechanism to enforce them and everyone should stop participating in FRAND so they can individually negotiate with every other player for royalty rates. The hypocrisy seems to be that Patents==Good when they protect Apple, and Bad when they work against Apple, regardless of the quality of the patents on either side.

It's just my opinion, but Apple seems to think that all of the other mobile players who've been in this game for decades and pioneered all of the basic technology (GSM, etc) are all just going to go home and get out of this business. Or at least just go back to making basic dumb phones. Are they kidding themselves?

It is entirely Apple's decision whether it wanted to license iOS to others or keep it to itself. And I wouldn't fault it for either choice. But if they keep it to themselves, it is obvious that they are going to face competition. And not just from one player, but from all other players. That's just how things work. It's true if you make cars, TV sets, clothes dryers, or light bulbs.

Apple could stick to building a superior product. And maybe they actually do. But it is also high priced. I could argue that Ferrari or Rolls Royce build superior but high priced products. (Superior in two different dimensions from basic cars, performance or luxury respectively.) But most people drive cars that cost much less. If Apple wants to build a boutique product, fine. But realistically expect most people to buy the lower priced product.

Now, given all of that together, I can only conclude that what Apple wants is an absolute monopoly. If they accepted that they built a high end boutique product and most people wouldn't buy it, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. What they seem to want is to build the high end product, or at least high priced product, and nobody else should be allowed to compete so that everyone is forced to buy their product or do without.

I would point out that Apple freely copies significant ideas from Android and Apple's fans seem to think nothing of it. And worse, Steve Jobs would claim those very ideas were bad when Apple didn't have them yet, but were innovations once Apple did get them. (Multitasking done poorly, then Multitasking done with Android's notification system, Seven inch tablets.)

In the end, I care because it affects me personally. I don't care what phone or tablet or computer you buy. If you like Apple's product, then buy them and I hope you like them. Yes, really. I only care because it is Apple that seems to think I should have no choice but to buy their products.

The Apple of the 21st century (unlike the Apple I dearly loved in the 80's and 90's) is worse than Microsoft ever was. It is telling that people like Guy Kawasaki and Steve Wozniak are Android users.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

.

How about a "don't use ambiguous and broad patents to sue people and you should be ok" card?

I guess this shoots down the whole "Samesung blatantly copied Apple, it says so in their emails!!!!!111111" mantra.But then again, this isn't over just yet.

A blatant copy doesn't imply willful patent infraction.All that Judge Koh says in this situation is that there's no proof that Samsung deliberately copied stuff from patents that had been granted to Apple. The judgement is that they simply infringed on Apple's patents and that there's no proof they were aware of it.

Anyway, it is legal to copy Apple strategy based on premium smartphones, a limited number of models and multitouch graphic interface. The e-mail showed that Samsung did more than that, and that was an element establishing that they were playing a dangerous game with it. But there's no proof either that some guy at Samsung ever said: "Our lawyers told us that Apple got a patent on this, but rather than losing time designing our own solution, we'll just copy it and hope nobody notices." That's what would have granted Apple triple the money.

Let's compare this to a libel case. An accused party was responsible for hear-say and can be found guilty. An aggravating circumstance would be that the accused party knew perfectly well it was a lie or a fabrication and decided to spread the word anyway (instead of just being gullible or making wrong assumptions). But you need to have proof of it to get higher damages.

Overall, Koh predictably defended the results of the four-week trial that took place in her courtroom

Shocking...... I know.

When can we get this trainwreck behind us and move on? Apple sucks because they're abusing (or should I say, abused?) the patent system to play "gotcha!" and to be, by and large, douchebags. Samsung sucks because honestly, from my perspective, a couple of their phones were too similar for comfort. Especially when the software interface resembles the iPhone's so closely. Come up with something at least a LITTLE different in the future.

In both cases, the companies and their leadership acted like little d-bag spoiled kids. In both cases, these companies behaved like a**holes.

Reform the patent system please. Stop allowing companies to patent rectangles, squares, and freakin circles. Make it more robust. Start protecting REAL ingenuity and not trite bullsh*t.

I'm starting to wonder why these large companies are worried about patents at all. Damages are lower than profits, sales injunctions are off the table, and willfullness is extremely difficult to prove. Right now infringement in the US looks like a license which may end up costing you a little more.

Just make the product. If it doesn't succeed nobody will bother to sue you, and if does succeed you can fix the patent licensing in post.

Unless you're a small company, of course. Then you're just better off settling because you can't afford the enormous legal expense.

I find it interesting that Samsung's argument was accepted that, although they knowingly implemented patented software techniques, they weren't willfully infringing because they believed the patents were invalid.

This seems like a get out of jail free card for willful infringement.

In this case, I suppose it's all good since software shouldn't be patentable in the first place, but it seems like an odd legal precedent to set for patent cases in general.

It might seem odd, but Samsung knows that the patent system is broken. And by broken I mean, patents are issued willy-nilly and it's up to the courts to decide. And really, Samsung should have won this case, but lost due to a rogue jury that didn't care to understand what prior art even means.

Yeah. I do kinda agree with your final point. When the jury came out after and started making some of the statements they made..... I was shocked. The fact that they ignored the jury instructions, and the jury foreman kind of railroaded things..... and Koh's handling of the case, all were disgusting.

I still don't believe the case was handled properly. I think Koh gambled that she could get the two sides to compromise and settle..... and SEVERELY underestimated the stubborness of both.

Wow. Can you imagine any small startup being able to last in an environment where this kind of damage can be done to them? Little guy makes something innovative, little guy sells a lot, little guy is bankrupted by trying to keep up with the teams of lawyers employed directly by the Big Guys.

And to think these patents were meant to HELP the little guys keep up...

There is no system that time, money, greed, and a little imagination can't ruin.

I would point out that Apple freely copies significant ideas from Android and Apple's fans seem to think nothing of it. And worse, Steve Jobs would claim those very ideas were bad when Apple didn't have them yet, but were innovations once Apple did get them. (Multitasking done poorly, then Multitasking done with Android's notification system, Seven inch tablets.).

Don't know if Jobs actually said anything about them, but anyone remember hearing Microsoft Tablet PC that came out in 2001-2002?

It was expensive as hell, awkwardly-sized, and used a pen at the time, but clearly Gates was on to something, because 'lo and behold, when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad in 2010 (still think they should've chosen a better name for that thing, but that's another story) the masses went absolutely bonkers over it, and people are still lining up to get the newest iProduct and are willing to pay $500 for the thing.

Someone want to explain to this Internet Zen Master how that works, because apart from human stupidity, I can't come up with any logical explanation.

Raise of hands...How many of you actually know what this case is about? the actual evidence presented by both sides?

Ars has done a decent job at remaining truer to the facts of the case and keeping wild conjectures out of their articles; a commendable feat for the media in this day and age. However, comments on this (one of the most tame) and other related articles are scary to read. People, smart people, are too willingly to accept "news" as fact. I have yet to read these recent court documents, and I am not claiming Ars's accounts to be inaccurate, but the comments I have read demonstrate, clearly, that most commenters are truly uninformed about the case; yet, completely willing to pass judgement on either party. I urge you to read the documents - the evidence from BOTH sides.

The media as a whole has done what they do best....present conjecture as fact to increase the number of times people stop and read their articles; regardless of accuracy.

How many think they know the infamous McDonald's Coffee case? AND still believe people when they say "remember that burglar that fell through a kitchen skylight, onto a knife, then sued the homeowner and won?"

It was expensive as hell, awkwardly-sized, and used a pen at the time, but clearly Gates was on to something, because 'lo and behold, when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad in 2010 (still think they should've chosen a better name for that thing, but that's another story) the masses went absolutely bonkers over it, and people are still lining up to get the newest iProduct and are willing to pay $500 for the thing.

Someone want to explain to this Internet Zen Master how that works, because apart from human stupidity, I can't come up with any logical explanation.

I'll give it a try.

Unlike a number of previous tablets that were trying to put a desktop OS into a tablet, the iPad was a uniquely different product. The major improvement was that it didn't run Windows!

Unlike PCs, laptops (and thus tablets running Windows) the iPad is extremely close to, if not exactly the ideal of an "appliance" device. Like a TV set or clothes dryer. Everyone knows that PCs get malware and develop problems over time, they get slower, start popping up ads, and all sorts of problems. You have to spend money to get your broken PC repaired. With an iPad, it is obvious if it is broken. The screen is cracked. Or it won't turn on. Or significantly less likely, it bursts into flame or explodes.

It's not stupid. People are paying good money for tablets for a good reason. They find it a better way to do the tasks they do. Web browsing. Consuming media. Reading/writing email. And maybe a few other tasks. You might be surprised at how many people use a PC to do no more than these simple tasks.

That's why the iPad, and tablet devices in general (except for Windows 8) are doing so well.

The jury found Samsung's infringement was willful in five of the seven patents that Apple won on, but that isn't enough to automatically increase damages. For each of those five patents, Koh ruled, Samsung had good reasons to believe it didn't infringe, so the infringement isn't willful.

"The DiamondTouch, however, treats a two-finger touch as unique, and a single finger or a three-or-four-finger touch as the same. The ’915 Patent, in contrast, treats one-finger touches as unique, and two, three, or four-finger touches as the same."

How is that not obvious?

1-> 2. Patented as new/unique.1->2->3->4 Also new and unique and not at all obvious, because extending an already existing sequence is a stroke of genius!

It was expensive as hell, awkwardly-sized, and used a pen at the time, but clearly Gates was on to something, because 'lo and behold, when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad in 2010 (still think they should've chosen a better name for that thing, but that's another story) the masses went absolutely bonkers over it, and people are still lining up to get the newest iProduct and are willing to pay $500 for the thing.

Someone want to explain to this Internet Zen Master how that works, because apart from human stupidity, I can't come up with any logical explanation.

I'll give it a try.

Unlike a number of previous tablets that were trying to put a desktop OS into a tablet, the iPad was a uniquely different product. The major improvement was that it didn't run Windows!

Unlike PCs, laptops (and thus tablets running Windows) the iPad is extremely close to, if not exactly the ideal of an "appliance" device. Like a TV set or clothes dryer. Everyone knows that PCs get malware and develop problems over time, they get slower, start popping up ads, and all sorts of problems. You have to spend money to get your broken PC repaired. With an iPad, it is obvious if it is broken. The screen is cracked. Or it won't turn on. Or significantly less likely, it bursts into flame or explodes.

It's not stupid. People are paying good money for tablets for a good reason. They find it a better way to do the tasks they do. Web browsing. Consuming media. Reading/writing email. And maybe a few other tasks. You might be surprised at how many people use a PC to do no more than these simple tasks.

That's why the iPad, and tablet devices in general (except for Windows 8) are doing so well.

Also, we tend to forget that not every Apple product results in instant gold. For example, Apple tried a portable touchscreen device back in the 90's - the Newton. It was a good idea but failed to sell for a variety of reasons. Palm came along and destroyed them with the Pilot and pretty much owned the early PDA. Much like how tablets flopped before the iPad, then Apple succeeded.

With the trial, my personal opinion is that the verdict and award are complete BS. But that's how it goes with juries sometimes (glad my neck isn't on the line though!) and from all the coverage there doesn't seem to be something wrong enough procedurally for the judge to overrule what was decided in her own court.

The appeal is to examine things in more detail and give both sides "another chance" - and both sides are chomping at the bit for it.